This is the 4:

1D, 1D2, 1D2MKIIn, MK3 = looks like number four to me, despite it's badge ...

Melor wrote:I fully anticipate the production run of 1D3's to be the shortest in the 1D series. We will find out soon enough. I wonder if the next body will be a 1D3N, 1D4, or possibly skipping an unlucky "4" go right to the 1D5?
Paul

It would be real interesting to do these shots at a small aperture, with great depth of field. If the ghosting still occurs, and there is a great range of front/back in-focus area, then we know for sure that the problem is something other than a focus problem. Perhaps as others mentioned, something mechanical/vibrating/processing inside the body that has nothing to do with the focusing system.

Harvey

Before reading this thread I thought I was the only one seeing that effect.
Looks really strange, but I remember that I noticed it on the first sample shots from the Mark3 that I saw on the internet.

hfillmore wrote:
It would be real interesting to do these shots at a small aperture, with great depth of field. If the ghosting still occurs, and there is a great range of front/back in-focus area, then we know for sure that the problem is something other than a focus problem. Perhaps as others mentioned, something mechanical/vibrating/processing inside the body that has nothing to do with the focusing system.

Harvey

I agree and disagree, if you set your aperture smaller your shutter speed will decrease/slower. if this is caused by vibration in the shutter, then it may not show with slower shutter speeds 1/2000th or there abouts.

I would like to see this same sequence shot at a lower ISO, say ISO 50 or so, get the shutter down to where the camera can handle, 1/8000th shutter thats the max the camera can do. lets see these at 1/4000th or so and see the results. This too may rule out shutter vibration/ghosting/blur.

Jeff, thanks for pointing out your findings in the images , I agree there is still a serious problem, and I'm leaning toward something internally shaking/vibrating when the shutter is activated.

I agree but you may want to be careful what you post.
Quote from the bottom of the article
"These photos are for personal viewing and printing only. They may not be republished in any form without the permission of the copyright holder. This includes the posting of these photos onto another server."

72chevelle454 wrote:
hfillmore wrote:
It would be real interesting to do these shots at a small aperture, with great depth of field. If the ghosting still occurs, and there is a great range of front/back in-focus area, then we know for sure that the problem is something other than a focus problem. Perhaps as others mentioned, something mechanical/vibrating/processing inside the body that has nothing to do with the focusing system.

Harvey

I agree and disagree, if you set your aperture smaller your shutter speed will decrease/slower. if this is caused by vibration in the shutter, then it may not show with slower shutter speeds 1/2000th or there abouts.

I would like to see this same sequence shot at a lower ISO, say ISO 50 or so, get the shutter down to where the camera can handle, 1/8000th shutter thats the max the camera can do. lets see these at 1/4000th or so and see the results. This too may rule out shutter vibration/ghosting/blur.

Jeff, thanks for pointing out your findings in the images , I agree there is still a serious problem, and I'm leaning toward something internally shaking/vibrating when the shutter is activated.


I consistently see this at lower shutter too, with the overcast days I usually shoot at 1/500 to 1/2000 and it is still there. Not that my test is as consistent as RG but just shooting numbers of frames I still see it.

Jeff - I know you're on to something here!

I was in yellowstone a couple weeks this september. I have several series of coyote where I was shooting at 1/2000th, F7.1, on a tripod where nothing in the photo is sharp. After looking at the ghosting, I can say for sure my camera is exhibiting this problem. It was not "hot" out, but bright and sunny when I took the photos in question. Despite f7.1, not a single item in the frame is sharp. Looking at some of the grass blades at 100%, I see the same ghosting effect.

I do use IS, I wonder if higher speeds with IS are causing the problem? Very strange.

Steve

samd12 wrote:
I agree but you may want to be careful what you post.
Quote from the bottom of the article
"These photos are for personal viewing and printing only. They may not be republished in any form without the permission of the copyright holder. This includes the posting of these photos onto another server."

The "fair use" copyright exemption specifically covers "critique". I think Jeff is using these photos to critique the camera. However, I wouldn't want to make RG unhappy considering all he has done for Canon MKIII owners.

Jeff wrote:
DavidP wrote:
Jeff, you should email this to RobG to get his comments on it.

I did exactly that this morning as soon as I took a look at his images. Something tells me Canon will be a little less 'proactive' in running this one down. I think the submirror certainly fixed some issues with the jumpy/errant AF points, but this is clearly something different. And odd.

nathanlake wrote:
I sort of wish the two camera (IIN and III) had been set up and fired simultaneously. Would have been a more interesting comparison and perhas more useful comparison.


Maybe, but frankly I was impressed with the consistency of Rob's images between the two series. Gives credence to his shooting skills and methods, to be sure.

I too am impressed, but ideally the shooting skills of the person should not be a factor in the testing.

John Ferguson wrote:
samd12 wrote:
I agree but you may want to be careful what you post.
Quote from the bottom of the article
"These photos are for personal viewing and printing only. They may not be republished in any form without the permission of the copyright holder. This includes the posting of these photos onto another server."

The "fair use" copyright exemption specifically covers "critique". I think Jeff is using these photos to critique the camera. However, I wouldn't want to make RG unhappy considering all he has done for Canon MKIII owners.


I agree John, I appreciate greatly both of their work ( I own a MKIII). I thank them both immensely. Please do no misinterpret my post.

Steve Perry wrote:


I do use IS, I wonder if higher speeds with IS are causing the problem? Very strange.

Steve

Steve, I think there are some tests on pbase kicking around on this subject and as far as I remember they conclude that images are softer with High Speed Shutter with IS, I turn IS off if shooting above 1/400th probably should turn off above 1/250th

Doesn't explain why the MKIIn is ok though?

Cheers

Nick

if the lens had any focus movement during the process of an exposure it would cause the blurring, maybe the lens cant put the brakes on and stop the movement fast enough for ten frames a second. I would like to see Rob compare the two cameras dialed down to equal speeds 8 frames a second.

I think it is a combination of longitudinal spherochromatic aberration, and one very slightly skewed lens element. Possibly an issue with a reflex from the front filter (if present).

Notice in the sharp picture, how there is a dark ghost text just where the bright ghost text is in the OOF picture. That is tell-tale of longitudinal spherochromatic aberration.

Iīm pretty sure that if the camera was on a tripod, set on manual, lens focused manually using love view, and the lens then rotated in the bayonet lock, the resulting picture would reveal the ghost image to follow the lens rotation.

David

Edited by David Svensson on Dec 11, 2007 at 06:59 PM GMT

Edited by David Svensson on Dec 11, 2007 at 07:03 PM GMT

Wait a second...

It affects every single 1DM3 no matter when manufactured,
because the 'fix' doesn't fix the problem.
No 1DM3 is good.

maljo

Great findings, thanks very much!

David Svensson wrote:
... lens focused manually using love view....

Wow! The camera has love view?? I'm gonna get it !

Is one workaround to set high speed at 8 shots per second?
Does 10 a second start a feedback loop with stabalization or something else?

gfiksel wrote:
Wow! The camera has love view?? I'm gonna get it !


It actually has! You take a shot of your wife, it's out of focus and suddenly she looks way better than ever before

Andrew J,

I thought I read in RG's report that frame rate had no effect on % OOF shots. Am I correct on that or am I dreaming?

Steven Kelley wrote:
Andrew J,

I thought I read in RG's report that frame rate had no effect on % OOF shots. Am I correct on that or am I dreaming?

"In testing Canon's hardware and firmware changes in the EOS-1D Mark III, we had the camera set to the centre AF point exclusively, and varied only the frame rate (10fps, 8fps) and AF Microadjustment settings. As noted earlier in the article, the AF Microadjustment setting does make a small difference, but the frame rate doesn't."

I wonder if shooting in Silent Mode would reduce this? That mode totally changes the way the mirror is slapped around. It should be pretty easy to compair staic shots in normal one shot and silent mode.
Z

FretNoMore wrote:
In some cases like the logo on the t-shirt maybe there can sometimes be other explanations though, the edges of the stitching/printing is perhaps not all that sharp, maybe there's lens CA at the high contrast edge between blue and white, maybe there's sensor blooming because of local overexposure (though CA and blooming usually have a color to it). Just some ideas, I'm not saying this explains anything or everything of course.

That was the first thing I evaluated when I noticed the 'ghosting' effect, as I wasn't even sure I was seeing it, initially. There are quite a few in-focus images that show the nature of the logo on the shirt; in the closer-up images, you can even make out the clear 'edges' of the decal that was applied, and the edges of the white text is of uniform contrast/sharpness on all sides (top/bottom, left/right).

Note that there are a few images where the ghosting appears on a different axis, but I think this only was evidenced on the landscape-orientation shots.
-------------------------------------------------------
Nathan Hobbs wrote:
if the lens had any focus movement during the process of an exposure it would cause the blurring, maybe the lens cant put the brakes on and stop the movement fast enough for ten frames a second. I would like to see Rob compare the two cameras dialed down to equal speeds 8 frames a second.

This makes some sense that there could be some sort of timing error somewhere in the system, but what I can't fathom is why it wouldn't affect the image in a 'non-directional' nature, i.e. the logo should be blurry on all sides, not just one side of one axis.
-------------------------------------------------------
David Svensson wrote:
I think it is a combination of longitudinal spherochromatic aberration, and one very slightly skewed lens element. Possibly an issue with a reflex from the front filter (if present). Notice in the sharp picture, how there is a dark ghost text just where the bright ghost text is in the OOF picture. That is tell-tale of longitudinal spherochromatic aberration.


If this were the case, I would think the the MkIIn images would also exhibit the effect, unless of course it's a lens-mount issue on the MkIII. Mine feels pretty typical, for what that's worth.
-------------------------------------------------------
maljo wrote:
Wait a second... It affects every single 1DM3 no matter when manufactured, because the 'fix' doesn't fix the problem. No 1DM3 is good.


And you just may (likely) be able to lump the 1Ds MkIII into that, unless of course Canon is able to (rather quickly) pull a rabbit out of its collective hat!

-------------------------------------------------------
Andrew J wrote:
Is one workaround to set high speed at 8 shots per second?
Does 10 a second start a feedback loop with stabalization or something else?

I shot at lower frame rates way back in the beginning, but those inconsistent AF results very well could have been due to the submirror. I'd have to go back and check, as I feel that the submirror affects the chosen focal point in the frame, whereas this is a different beast altogether.
-------------------------------------------------------
samd12 wrote:
I agree but you may want to be careful what you post. Quote from the bottom of the article: "These photos are for personal viewing and printing only. They may not be republished in any form without the permission of the copyright holder. This includes the posting of these photos onto another server."

I'll be happy to remove the images at Rob's request; I did intentionally leave his copyright intact for everything I posted, and I would not think that, given the nature of the thread, RG would consider this to be any sort of intentional misuse on my part. What good are the images if we can't 'use them' to evaluate his results?

Thank you very much for your consistent and lucid argumentation. Very interesting.

I was involved in some laboratory tests of MkIII's at a university workshop and we ended with the same questions:
1. What kind of malfunction could result in the unidirectional blur that seems to be typical for the camera?
2. Might there be a multifactorial disorder resulting from hypercomplexity in real-time processing?

After the recent discussion in these days it became clearer, that we are dealing with a systematic design error not with a production flaw (i.e. the submirror-fix theme).

The unwillingness of the manufacturer to communicate the apparent dysfunction is without precedent in a field of professionally used equipment. It is a pity that the above reflections and conversations are conducted completely separated from the company. It can be assumed that Canon was able to replicate the malfunction under laboratory conditions at least after Galbraith's last tests. Nevertheless since the introduction of the model they did never publish a product advisory statement and did not directly address the professionals, that depend on their products as business investments. Who of those could bona fide go on investing in EOS 1Ds Mark III bodies sharing the identical AF-technology in this situation of downright ignorance of the manufacturer against its clients?

gfiksel wrote:
David Svensson wrote:
... lens focused manually using love view....

Wow! The camera has love view?? I'm gonna get it !


Freudian typo. Oops...

David

Arianne Dubois wrote:
I was involved in some laboratory tests of MkIII's at a university workshop and we ended with the same questions:

....

After the recent discussion in these days it became clearer, that we are dealing with a systematic design error not with a production flaw (i.e. the submirror-fix theme).

The unwillingness of the manufacturer to communicate the apparent dysfunction is without precedent in a field of professionally used equipment.


Sounds very interesting. What was the university context, please? (applied optics, computer systems, marketing?)

I think it is a matter both of the design, and of production varability.

Sad to say, but I donīt think there is any historical lack at all of companies being unwilling to communicate openly about deficiencies in pro equipment.

David